The defendant had claimed that the plaintiff preached a sermon against the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain to the Liverpool borough gaol, and another sermon reflecting in strong terms on the conduct of the town council of Liverpool electing a Jew their mayor, and had caused extracts from both sermons to be published in the local newspapers. The defendant relied in part on the plaintiff’s own intemperate conduct toward the defendant.
Held: Blackburn J said ‘Now there can be no set-off of libel or misconduct against another, but in estimating the compensation for the plaintiffs injured feelings, the jury might fairly consider the plaintiff’s conduct and the degree of respect which the plaintiff himself had shown for the feelings of others; and finding on the evidence, that he published in the local press sermons reflecting on the local authorities that he published a statement (which I own I think borne out by the articles) that the defendant’s paper was so conducted as to justify the epithet of ‘the dregs of provincial journalism,’ and, above all, that he delivered from the pulpit, and published in the provincial papers, a statement to the effect that some of his opponents (no matter, in my opinion, whether including the defendant or not) had been guilty of subornation of perjury, and would, as he charitably hoped, repent on their deathbeds and confess their guilt, I cannot say that I think the jury were bound to give him substantial damages, though I heartily wish that their verdict had not been such as to give an appearance of triumph to the defendant’
Judges:
Blackburn J
Citations:
[1866] LR 1 QB 686
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Doubted – Judd v Sun Newspapers 1930
(Australia) The plaintiff was put in the box as a witness but not asked any questions by his counsel, nor did he give any evidence in chief; he was, however, cross-examined by counsel for the defendants, at great length, not only in regard to . .
Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Damages
Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.185260
